Skrillex has talent.. in a way... its in his ear though,
its hard to put sounds together that fit right and especially keep you glued in till the end. That's one of the biggest challenges of making music and Skrillex managed to do it.
Just, he makes too much remix's of one song.

@Eluveitie - Your name alone, shows you have a great knowledge of music.

I think there's some amazing music coming out of the indie, folk and alternative scene right now. It's a shame that club music is clogging our airwaves.

Andy Hull (Manchester Orchestra, Right Away Great Captain!, Bad Books), Caleb Followill (Kings of Leon), Marcus Mumford (Mumford and Sons), Ben Bridwell (Band of Horses), Justin Vernon (Bon Iver) and Sam Beam (Iron & Wine) have amazing voices and most of these guys are lyrical geniuses. I'm actually proud of the music that these guys are making today.

Hey cool kid, nice language, that fuck really needs to be there right? Gotta show some authority!

I'm defending the fact he thinks it is 'JUNK'. I was going to compare. There are components that make a good song. Exactly, good is loose when it comes to music. Good can be different to anyone. If everyone listened to your "no such thing as music being better than other music" how do they determine grammy awards? etc. -_-

Hey cool kid, nice language, that fuck really needs to be there right? Gotta show some authority!

I'm defending the fact he thinks it is 'JUNK'. I was going to compare. There are components that make a good song. Exactly, good is loose when it comes to music. Good can be different to anyone. If everyone listened to your "no such thing as music being better than other music" how do they determine grammy awards? etc. -_-

Grammy awards are mostly quasi-political bullshit, I wouldn't use them as a judge tbh

Hey cool kid, nice language, that fuck really needs to be there right? Gotta show some authority!

I'm defending the fact he thinks it is 'JUNK'. I was going to compare. There are components that make a good song. Exactly, good is loose when it comes to music. Good can be different to anyone. If everyone listened to your "no such thing as music being better than other music" how do they determine grammy awards? etc. -_-

Oh no! I used the word fuck!

You know the Grammy awards are a popularity contest right? They don't really give a shit about whether the music is better than the other, which causes a bunch of shit between the fans of the bands that are nominated. They only care about the money. Not whose better than who.

Seriously, no band can be better than another band. One band might appeal to more people than another one does, but that doesn't mean they're better.

And comparing components of songs is taking those components out of context with the song, completely missing the point of the song. You can't compare parts of songs, it's like comparing parts of movies. You're taking that part out of context and saying, "well this is a brilliant example of cinematography" when in fact it only seems like genius with the rest of the movie around it.

Hey cool kid, nice language, that fuck really needs to be there right? Gotta show some authority!

I'm defending the fact he thinks it is 'JUNK'. I was going to compare. There are components that make a good song. Exactly, good is loose when it comes to music. Good can be different to anyone. If everyone listened to your "no such thing as music being better than other music" how do they determine grammy awards? etc. -_-

anyone who thinks something of the such of that is junk really has no respect for music in general.
you may not like it, but it's not junk. i don't like electronic music but i can appreciate effort the better electronic artists put behind the music they make.

You know the Grammy awards are a popularity contest right? They don't really give a shit about whether the music is better than the other, which causes a bunch of shit between the fans of the bands that are nominated. They only care about the money. Not whose better than who.

Seriously, no band can be better than another band. One band might appeal to more people than another one does, but that doesn't mean they're better.

And comparing components of songs is taking those components out of context with the song, completely missing the point of the song. You can't compare parts of songs, it's like comparing parts of movies. You're taking that part out of context and saying, "well this is a brilliant example of cinematography" when in fact it only seems like genius with the rest of the movie around it.

It's exactly like saying no art is better than other art. There is music better than other music. There are paintings better than other paintings. Can you really sit there and tell me that there is no music better than other music?

Try comparing (shamefully using the first examples that came to my head) Rebecca Black's "Friday" to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody". Are they REALLY on the same level?

Art is mainly about creativity. And yes, creativity can certainly be judged and RANKED.

It's exactly like saying no art is better than other art. There is music better than other music. There are paintings better than other paintings. Can you really sit there and tell me that there is no music better than other music?

Try comparing (shamefully using the first examples that came to my head) Rebecca Black's "Friday" to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody". Are they REALLY on the same level?

Art is mainly about creativity. And yes, creativity can certainly be judged and RANKED.

I don't like Friday or Bohemian Rhapsody, so yeah in my opinion they are on the same level. In my opinion.

I agree that everyone has different taste and likes different music, that's obvious, you learn that when you are a child. I'm saying that music has a criteria that can determine what makes a successful composition, and therefore it can be ranked. It's about the natural law of what humans receive to be good sound and what they do not.

If you ignore natural laws (I don't even know if that's the right way to word it) you may as well throw away the *idea* of attractive people, successful lives and similar things while you're at it

It's exactly like saying no art is better than other art. There is music better than other music. There are paintings better than other paintings. Can you really sit there and tell me that there is no music better than other music?

Try comparing (shamefully using the first examples that came to my head) Rebecca Black's "Friday" to Queen's "Bohemian Rhapsody". Are they REALLY on the same level?

Art is mainly about creativity. And yes, creativity can certainly be judged and RANKED.

Yes I will sit here and tell you that no music is better than other music.

Creativity can be judged and ranked yes. But only by you. Someone else may think what you consider bad to be good, and vice versa. Now Friday was a bad song, but I can almost guarantee you that there is someone out there that liked it, and that makes it just as good as any other song out there because someone enjoys it and considers it good.

I agree that everyone has different taste and likes different music, that's obvious, you learn that when you are a child. I'm saying that music has a criteria that can determine what makes a successful composition, and therefore it can be ranked. It's about the natural law of what humans receive to be good sound and what they do not.

If you ignore natural laws (I don't even know if that's the right way to word it) you may as well throw away the *idea* of attractive people, successful lives and similar things while you're at it

my idea of a successful life is one where I sell hash and write a book that doesn't really sell well but people like it and I live in a shitty apartment. My idea of attractive people is different to other people's as well. All those things are subjective so it's not really a good comparison to make dude

I agree that everyone has different taste and likes different music, that's obvious, you learn that when you are a child. I'm saying that music has a criteria that can determine what makes a successful composition, and therefore it can be ranked. It's about the natural law of what humans receive to be good sound and what they do not.

If you ignore natural laws (I don't even know if that's the right way to word it) you may as well throw away the *idea* of attractive people, successful lives and similar things while you're at it

You fundamentally can't compare subjective tastes.

You can compare what you guys consider good and whatnot, but you can't compare whether one is better than the other, because ultimately, you both have different ideas on what is good or not.

I agree that everyone has different taste and likes different music, that's obvious, you learn that when you are a child. I'm saying that music has a criteria that can determine what makes a successful composition, and therefore it can be ranked. It's about the natural law of what humans receive to be good sound and what they do not.

If you ignore natural laws (I don't even know if that's the right way to word it) you may as well throw away the *idea* of attractive people, successful lives and similar things while you're at it

No it can't.

There are people who would use that definition to declare this as not music.

But they would be wrong, cause music can be defined as any enjoyable sound, and there's people who like harsh noise, drone and fuck I even like the sound of industrial machinery.

I think there's some amazing music coming out of the indie, folk and alternative scene right now. It's a shame that club music is clogging our airwaves.

Andy Hull (Manchester Orchestra, Right Away Great Captain!, Bad Books), Caleb Followill (Kings of Leon), Marcus Mumford (Mumford and Sons), Ben Bridwell (Band of Horses), Justin Vernon (Bon Iver) and Sam Beam (Iron & Wine) have amazing voices and most of these guys are lyrical geniuses. I'm actually proud of the music that these guys are making today.